'Oh God': Dawkins forgets name of evolution's bible

St Valentine's massacre in religion wars as Dawkins forgets full name of seminal Darwin book

RICHARD DAWKINS (above) suffered a rare skewering at the hands of the clergy after taking to the airwaves to argue that people who call themselves Christians are often lying. And at one point the high priest of atheism even appeared to call for divine intervention as he struggled to remember the title of Charles Darwin's bible of evolution.

Dawkins went on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning to talk about a survey he had published showing that half of the people who described themselves as Christian on the 2011 census do not consider themselves religious.

The object of the poll, carried out by Ipsos Mori for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, appears to have been to discredit the use of census data to justify Christian practices such as government funding for faith schools and bishops having seats in the House of Lords.

Debating the survey's findings with the Rev Giles Fraser, the former canon of St Paul's Cathedral who quit last year, Dawkins made much of the fact that 64 per cent of people who said they were Christians in the census were not able to identify Matthew as the first book of the New Testament.

The second time Dawkins mentioned the finding, Fraser asked him if he could tell him the full title of On the Origin of Species, the book by Charles Darwin considered to be the 'Bible' of evolutionary biology.

Dawkins stated emphatically: "Yes I could."

"Go on then," said Fraser.

Dawkins's halting reply, complete with an improbable appeal to a higher authority, went thus: "On the Origin of Species, er, with... oh God... On the Origin of Species, um... There is a subtitle... er, um, with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."

The correct answer is, of course, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

A triumphant Fraser said: "You are the High Pope of Darwinism. If you asked people who believe in evolution that question and only two per cent got it right it would be terribly easy for me to say they don't really believe it after all.

"It's just not fair to ask people these questions."

But the religiously inclined did not have everything their way today. Earlier, Baroness Warsi caused uproar after suggesting in The Daily Telegraph that there had been "a militant secularisation" in European society. She said it had led to the banning of religious signs in government buildings, a decline in funding for faith schools and the "marginalisation" of religion in the public sphere.

Warsi wrote the article to mark a visit by herself and other ministers to the Vatican to meet the Pope.

She compared "militant secularisation" to totalitarian regimes which "denied people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities".

Warsi's article was roundly condemned. Times journalist Patrick Strudwick wrote on Twitter: "If it wasn't for the influence of secularism Baroness Warsi wouldn't even have the vote let alone be a baroness."

Others facetiously compared the threat from militant secularists with that from militant Islamists.

The Secular Society, which published Dawkins's survey, also got in on the action, tweeting: "Warsi heads to the last theocracy in Europe to lecture secularists on totalitarianism and intolerance. You couldn't make it up."

Of course, Warsi's and Dawkins's detractors were being somewhat unfair. Warsi specifically writes in her article, "I am not calling for some kind of 21st century theocracy", and Dawkins's point that census data isn't necessarily a sound justification for spending public money on Christian policies still stands. But then, one only has to look at the US to see how cultural wars over religion are rarely reasonable.

Disqus - noscript

Honestly, the best you could do is bust an aging professor for a minor memory lapse. How embarrassing for you.

Submitted by Rationalist on February 14, 2012 - 2:49pm.

What rubbish. You don't need to to remember the full title (which was, by the way, just reduced to 'The Origin of Species' for the 6th Edition) in order to understand evolution, but you need to understand the books in the bible if you claim to believe in what they say. That only 35% of self-professed 'Christians' can pick the correct one out of four of the MOST FAMOUS books in the bible, demonstrates how ignorant they are of even the basics of their religion. Perhaps they think that Moses was born in a manger and led the Israelites to the Promised Land in Eden.

Submitted by Daphne Hill on February 14, 2012 - 2:50pm.

Richard Dawkins said that people who couldn't name the first book of the New Testament were not real Christians.There are many Roman Catholic Priests, past & present who abused and still abuse children. I imagine they know their bible and can recite many passages of the Bible so are they Christians Mr Dawkins?

Submitted by bloofert on February 14, 2012 - 2:54pm.

If you can't enjoy Dawkins's fumble regardless of your belief, I pity you.

Submitted by Peter Byrom on February 14, 2012 - 3:02pm.

Ciaran, all Fraser did was get Dawkins to try his own logic out on himself, and the Prof failed his own test. That's just tough luck I'm afraid. But then, if you're saying he's too old...?

If it were being reported as a gag or an aside, yes, I'd agree. It's being reported as some kind of checkmate.

Submitted by Steve Greene on February 14, 2012 - 3:07pm.

I'm a U.S. citizen. Government should not be using public money (i.e., money taxed from citizens) to fund or promote religious doctrine. Regardless of vociferous debate in the U.S. due to secularists continually having to push back against religious conservatives who are constantly trying to encroach on public turf by using government in various ways to promote their particular religious doctrines (like the creationists who try to get their religion into science classes in public schools), in the U.S. we have the concept of the separation of church and state enshrined in our national constitution, and that has been a very useful tool to keep those who adhere to beliefs based on primitive Bronze Age religious notions at bay.

The two are hardly equivalent.The Christians polled were given a multiple choice out of Matthew, Genesis, Acts of the Apostles and Psalms.On the other hand, Dawkins was asked to give a full 21-word book title, without any clues. He quickly paraphrased it, and eventually recalled the whole thing.

Submitted by bloofert on February 14, 2012 - 3:15pm.

I don't think it matters how some agencies report it. The key finding of the survey is that organised religion in the UK has no mandate to demand special privilege, and that is of more importance than how people perceive one man.

Peter, I'm afraid the logic still stands because there are several differences:

1) You don't need 'origin' to be a biologist, never mind an atheist.2) The question in the survey was multiple choice, so it's not like the Christians surveyed had a momentary lapse on live radio, the answer was in front of them.

This was one question out of many all leading to the same conclusion, despite what church leaders claim Christians see secularism as a good thing.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Dawkins fumble as much as the next guy but it hardly puts a dent in the final logic, even if it puts a dent in Dawkins ego,

Submitted by Arblaster on February 14, 2012 - 3:44pm.

It was a clever catch by Giles Fraser, but hardly a fair comparison. The answer to his question was one word 'Matthew', and it could be most appropriately argued that is not the full title. It's called 'The Gospel according to Matthew'. Could anybody then quote the first line?

Submitted by Supernma on February 14, 2012 - 3:59pm.

I see what Fraser was trying to do, but to suggest that Darwin's book is the same type of book as the bible is simply false. Firstly, as others have mentioned, The Origin of Species is not the end-all-be-all of scientific literature, while the bible is certainly the one and "true" manual for all Christians. The key difference between religion and science is that science is ever evolving, adapting, and changing, while religion stubbornly and ignorantly burries its head in the sand.

Submitted by TomNightingale on February 14, 2012 - 4:22pm.

But it is science that remains true to its beliefs; the search for knowledge based on fact and a willingness to accept that scientific "knowledge" is not absolute fact

It is religion (esp. Christian) that has changed its opinions whenever it was expeditious to do so. A bit like politicians!

Submitted by TomNightingale on February 14, 2012 - 4:26pm.

He wasn't saying if you can you are, more if you can't you aren't.

My thought is that most people who say they are Christian are frightened to say they are not; such is the evil of indoctrination. That is one reason we need to take religion out of public life.

Submitted by mattwardman on February 14, 2012 - 4:33pm.

>The key difference between religion and science is that science is ever evolving, adapting, and changing, while religion stubbornly and ignorantly burries its head in the sand. That is why the Dawk ends up looking silly. He hasn't - 20 years later - yet got to grips with the idea that religion does evolve, and that by demanding that all Christians must be cherry-picked-to-fit-his-prejudices Old Testament verses from 3000+ years ago he's makes himself a clown.

Submitted by Peter Mayhew on February 14, 2012 - 4:49pm.

Cheap shots are all the religious have left. So we shouldn't be surprised to see them used.

Submitted by Jason_Alexander on February 14, 2012 - 5:28pm.

You don't need to know the books of the bible to be a Christian, you just have to believe that the Christian god was instrumental in the creation of the world.

Their basic ignorance of their religion is an indication that their beliefs should not trump secularism.

Submitted by DaiWales on February 14, 2012 - 5:58pm.

I think Baroness Warsi has gone 'over the top', but also that we have got into a dialogue of the deaf. Those who believe in a God are understandably upset that traditions which have built up for 20 centuries are being allowed to wither, .......(Talk of militant atheists begs the question of angry Christians -seeing their sacred beliefs questioned and their Churches half empty)... and accuse secularists of 'attacking' their faith...

...while (non militant) secularists (like me) can't understand in the light of Darwin's studies and now the Large Hadron Collider how people can still believe in a Great Creator.

I believe that religion is a fine for people who need the support of a religion to get through this sometimes tough life, but I equally believe that it's slowly on its way out.

That said I respect and like churches and the faith which built them, I have visited some great Cathedrals in Europe; Seville, Albi, Coutances, Amiens, Reims, Winchester, Llandaff, with awe.

I don't get it. He got the subtext completely right except for one word: "or", which he substituted with "with respect to". And it is not the "bible of evolution". It is just an outdated science book with a lot of wrong assumptions that have been corrected in modern science books and papers. It is not a book that everyone bases their entire worldview on. It does not claim to be the instruction manual for how you should live your entire life and afterlife. It is not a book about who you should kill for breaking the rules of the book.The Bible is the singular source of Christian beliefs and a guid to their ENTIRE LIFE. It is the ONE BOOK. 'Origin of the Species' is one book of thousands, and it does not even matter aside from a historical standpoint. It is a coffee table book compared to modern books. We could toss it out right now and never refer to it again, and it would not change a single thing we know about evolution. Let's do that with the bible, and see how long Christianity lasts.

Submitted by FrankMill on February 14, 2012 - 7:02pm.

Errm, actually I thought that technically a Christian had to believe that Jesus died by crucifixion to atone for the sins of mankind. Belief that any god was instrumental in the creation of the world (not the cosmos?) is, of course, on a par with the tens of thousands of gods humans have dreamed up over their many years of existence.

Once again, technically (thanks to St Paul?) the sins of mankind are in fact the original sin of eating forbidden fruit which is apparently passed on from father to child. That's why everyone (including premature babies) is born a sinner, according to christianity.

Come to think of it why should anybody in 2012 believe such patent nonsense?

Submitted by Strp on February 14, 2012 - 7:44pm.

Pathetic piece. Dawkins remembered the first part of a very long title with a microphone in his face.If the Christians polled had at least remembered the first letter of the first gospel, then they would have been saved when presented with the alternatives as you will see from this quote:"Q23. What is the first book of the NEW Testament?%Matthew 35Genesis 19Acts of the Apostles 3Psalms 3Don’t know 39Prefer not to say 1"

I dare say some scientists are blessed with a photographic memory and so can remember everything they see. Needless to say most are not, and I am one of these. There is an awful lot in science now to be remembered, and it is foolish to imagine that it is possible. I, and I expect most scientists, do not attempt to remember details, especially trivial details, I try to learn principles. Then I can work out what happens in a situation from the principles I have learned. I suggest that anyone stuttering over imperfect rote learning is forgivable, but, given a list of answers, someone professing to know a subject ought to be able to get the right one.

Submitted by W.F. O'Mahony on February 14, 2012 - 9:53pm.

It'd be helpful I think if terms weren't confused eg: Christianity, theism, deism, spirituality etc. The Christ figure is not solely confined to Jesus of Nazareth but is a more ancient architype. A belief in the example and preaching of Jesus can, I assume be described as "Christian" while a fundamentalist view would insist on an acceptance of the veracity of the full cruxifiction and resurection story. But one can hardly deny the veracity of the resurection of the "force" of Jesus if 2,000 years after his death in a remote Roman provence it has 2 billion followers! Science is a poor tool to explore the issues involved here. E.F. Schumacher reckoned science as a tool was brilliant on inanimate matter, no so good on living matter, poor on consciousness, very poor on awareness and completely hopeless on spirituality. I think he may have something there. Evolution is a fine theory though not without it's unanswered questions. I reckon the God theory has merit also. Curiously both theories rely heavily on observation, logical deduction and circumstantial evidence. Neither can be proved beyond doubt using the true scientific method of repeatable experimentation!

Submitted by bonesiii on February 15, 2012 - 3:54am.

Actually the Bible doesn't say you must know everything about it to be a Christian. There are many examples in it where the opposite is stated, in fact, but it is of course better to know more. The best examples are admonishments to continually be learning, to people who are already Christians -- if they had to know it all to be a Christian they would not need to still learn. :)

The basic thing to understand is that God offers us all eternal life at no cost to us, that the cost was payed by the Christ, who was the manifestation of God. There is more more to the picture but accepting that Christ is what makes you a Christian. ^_^

The survey wasn't a test of belief, it was a test of memory. I have no axe to grind either way, but this illustrates Dawkins lack of logic - which runs through most of his work.

Submitted by W.F. O'Mahony on February 15, 2012 - 10:10am.

peter hobday - couldn't agree more! The lack of logic I remember most from Dickie Dawkins is the bit where he reckons most avowed sciencific giants of the past pretended to believe in God (Newton, Darwin etc) because religious universities would have disowned them, but today, no avowed atheistic scientist is afraid of being disowned by the establishment! Have it one way or the other, please. He attacks fundamentalism (rightly) but has all the hallmarks of fundamentalism himself. It is intriguing that the revelation of the genome caused Anthony Flew (no.1 atheist before RD) to change his mind as to the existence of a Designer while RD, looking at the same genome in its mind-boggling brilliance comes to the opposite conclusion.

Submitted by W.F. O'Mahony on February 15, 2012 - 10:26am.

But please can you tell us what is the difference between fact and absolute fact. Is it like being dead and being very dead? It seems "fact" = "theory, likely to be disproved at least partially". Surely it's better to say theory, like thoery of Evolution or theory of God, or String theory. The reality is we will only ever grapple with truth and, in my experience, the scientific method of getting ever closer to the truth works just as well with any area of enquiry including theology. Many great scientists of the past have been proved to be wrong so why not allow the same latitude to the many great spiritual leaders of the past? Move on. Take an open approach. Consider the possibility, however remote, that you might be mistaken.

Submitted by Cynic on February 15, 2012 - 7:48pm.

"Paid", not "payed"

Hrmph.

Submitted by Zac on February 15, 2012 - 8:15pm.

You have to believe he died on the cross and rose again on the third day and confess him as your lord and savoir.

I am a follower of Jesus, aka Christian, but I agree with Dawkins here, and find Fraser's comment to be ad hominem and inappropriate. Similar to Ben Stein in his movie "Expelled". C'mon Christians, people are not the enemy. Attack strongholds & lies, but not the person God values.

Submitted by Micah Raney on February 15, 2012 - 9:51pm.

Christianity is simply the belief that Jesus died for our sins. Since that's in the Bible, it only is good common sense to assume that Christians should believe the rest of it.

Submitted by Robert on February 16, 2012 - 6:29am.

mattwardman wrote "(Dawkins) hasn't - 20 years later - yet got to grips with the idea that religion does evolve".

Except that it really doesn't evolve at all. Look at Islam: Muhammad (without whom there could be no Islam) explicitly stated that not one letter of one word of his "testimony" could EVER be changed. That means that any Muslims who tries to soften or "evolve" Islam is, by the definition of their Prophet, apostate.

Shinto hasn't appreciably evolved, nor has Tibetan Buddhism, nor has Jainism. There are sects of Judaism that haven't evolved, as well as Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, if you're looking for "evolution" in religion, by far the best example would be Christianity, especially as practiced in the US and Europe.

But is it really "evolution"? Or is it just the dilution of the original beliefs to suit the laxity and skepticism of Americans today who, quite frankly have little time, patience or willingness to be inconvenienced by Jesus' (alleged) dictates such as "sell everything you have, give the money to the poor and follow me"? Because today not one "Christian" in a thousand actually does what Jesus asked of them.

Perhaps a more accurate description of what Christianity has done isn't "evolve" but "be cheapened and made more convenient". Is that what anyone should want of a religion?

Submitted by Alanw Marsden on February 16, 2012 - 10:17am.

It seems to me that the lust to undermine Richard Dawkins is getting out of control. Given time to think in a less pressured environment, I know that he would have been able to come up with the full title. He came up with most of it and has written books about the Selfish Gene. His response was forgetfulness of a complex title. The answer to the first question was Matthew. The answer to the second was nearly an essay in length. Hardly comparable. Is Giles Fraser without charity?

Submitted by RobfromVA on February 16, 2012 - 1:15pm.

May I ask what difference the percentage of Americans being true Christians makes? Does it make the history in the Bible any less true? Does it increase the absolute impossible odds that we all came from a single protein? Which by the way, with such abysmal odds in any other scientific experiment, such theories would have been dropped as totally impracticable! It also still begets the question: where did the energy come from for the big bang? No, Dawkins, like other atheist which may include you, rather believe in something so impossible that it begs any other explanation.

I'll take the odds of an intelligent designer, and the accurate history of the Bible myself!

Submitted by RobfromVA on February 16, 2012 - 1:18pm.

repent and confess

Submitted by RobfromVA on February 16, 2012 - 1:22pm.

The aging professor is on stage as a self described authority and shouldn't use any form of analogy he can't pass himself.

How is that a "lack of logic"? In the past society was not so accepting of beliefs that differed from the norm. Now, we recognize that there are many different beliefs throughout the world and that we need to respect others. Also, now that we have advanced technologically and scientifically there is more valid proof of scientific theory. People no longer have to use stories from the Bible to explain every day occurrences since we have scientific proof for these things. Things like gravity are now an accepted fact and scientists don't have to hide their ideas for fear of being called a "witch" or some other nonsense.

And why is it intriguing that two people presented with the same facts come to different conclusions? Everyone has different knowledge and experiences that they use to make their conclusions so it's not that odd that two people feel differently about the same thing. It happens all the time.

"You have to believe he died on the cross and rose again on the third day and confess him as your lord and savoir (sic)."

And YOU have to believe that Vishnu is the true god, and that Zeus is the king of the gods, and that Thor rules Valhalla, and that Atum created the world from his semen...

Did it ever occur to you that every religion makes claims like Christianity does, and uses the exact same "proof" (read: circular arguments) to justify their claims? What objective evidence did you use to determine that Yahweh and Jesus were the "true" gods which, at the same time, disproved the claims of all other claimed gods? Seriously -- I'd like to know.

Submitted by W.F. O'Mahony on February 17, 2012 - 3:21pm.

I'm not disagreeing. I think you may have misunderstood my views. I am 100% behind people's right to believe whatever they want but if their actions (eg paedophilic crimes) impinge on the rights of others then look out! While I accept that science has advanced greatly as regards explaining WHAT happens (physically, chemically etc.) we don't seem to have advanced nearly as much as regards WHY things are the way they are. Science confuses HOW with WHYand often this is a simple circular case, eg your hair fell out becuase you are suffering from alapetia: what's alapetia? It's a condition that results in hair loss. QED. Case proved. Now we know why. NO WE DON'T! Science is poor at WHY, especially evolutionary biology because that would imply design. Design implies designer. Designer implies God. So randomness reigns no matter how improbably. Extreme improbability is explained by mutliverse theory - far more unbelievable than even the craziest religious beliefs! Quantum mechanics cannot be reconciled with gravitational theory and vice versa yet both are accepted as true. That sounds very like a crazy religious belief to me. We will NEVER know anything with absolute certainty. Many physicists state that the more they learn the closer they get to God! They even refer to the elusive subatomic partical (Higg's bosun) as the God particle!!!Look carefully at your opponent's point of view: you might learn something is, I think, a good maxim for all of us.

Submitted by W.F. O'Mahony on February 17, 2012 - 3:52pm.

You may be confusing "evolve" with "interpretation". After all, no one has had the timerity to alter Darwin's "Origins" even when elements are overtaken by scientific enquiry. There is no valid reason why the words of either bible or Origins should be altered but there is every reason to interpret possible meanings. The words ascribed to Jesus (he wrote nothing himself) would surely be interpreted differently at different eras. If an early interpretation was made in light of what was known in 500AD then surely that interpretation must be revised in light of what is known in 2012AD. Remember too that the words of Jesus were in Aramaic, translated into Greek, thence to Latin, thence to English by different translators over a 1500 year period. In that time, English has evoled and the meaning of many words has altered sometimes to mean almost the opposite of its original meaning eg the word "sophisticated", "presently". The whole thing is worthy of far more serious discourse than this mud-slinging. I find it interesting that Jesus said the truth was hidden from the wise but obvious to children; 'best to use one's heart rather than one's brain perhaps?

Submitted by W.F. O'Mahony on February 18, 2012 - 5:10pm.

I find myself agreeing with you almost entirely. I use beauty (you say awe) ...fine. I'm not entirely with you on chaos - to me chaos is what should result from randomness ...as an artist I know that ...so does any any scientist. Order comes from concept, design and careful construction. What might be helpful is for scientists to accept that science, for all its power and all its rationale, cannot explain everything. Take a peek outside the box. Don't be frightened. Imagine if quantum physicists refused to accept anything that wasn't Newtonian?Those who give credence to God theory are more concerned with the WHY (ultimate causation) than with the HOW (science). Of course, even asking the question (why) is anti-unscientific (anti atheist anyway) as it implies design and therefore designer and we tend to call that designer God. Darwin had much to say on the subject (despite the Dawk's assertions to the contrary). You're likely to be disappointed when seeking rational (scientific) proofs for these religious statements. It's a bit like my saying "I loved that movie" and you say "prove it". To be a whole person one must allow room not only to one's mind and body but also to one's soul / spirit. One cannot look after one's body with mathematics nor one's mind with fish and chips nor one's soul / spirit with chemistry. If you seek the spirit / soul it's useful to use the analogy of a PC where the hardware is the body, the software is the mind and the operator is the spirit / soul (essence of the self in psychology).Finally, do you have a photo of yourself and your partner eating a nice steak? Why not a lion eating a nice giraffe? Think about it.

Submitted by Robert on February 18, 2012 - 7:11pm.

"I'm not entirely with you on chaos - to me chaos is what should result from randomness..."

Yes, which is just what determines the unpredictable nature of the sea and what goes on in it. It's chaos, held under the constraints of physics.

"Order comes from concept, design and careful construction. What might be helpful is for scientists to accept that science, for all its power and all its rationale, cannot explain everything."

That sounds uncomfortably close to "intelligent design" to me. Order comes not *just* from the three influences you listed, it can also arise from simple physical constraints like time and gravity. The bodies in our solar system were not "conceived, designed and carefully constructed", but they do perform with a marvelous (nearly perfect) regularity that I would say exemplifies "order".

"Those who give credence to God theory are more concerned with the WHY (ultimate causation) than with the HOW (science)."

It's not quite that simple, since there are a theoretically infinite number of "god theories", most of which are mutually exclusive. So if one was engaged in the search for "why?", and one was informed that religion A, tradition B, culture C, persons D, E and F all had wildly different concepts of "why god caused this all to be here", a rational person would see that either (1) only one of them could be right (which would inexorably lead one to ask for evidence to support the claim), or (2) cognitive dissonance should suggest that none of the explanations are correct and that perhaps the entire path of inquiry is flawed.

"To be a whole person one must allow room not only to one's mind and body but also to one's soul / spirit."

You've just introduced three terms - "whole", "soul" and "spirit" -- that I can't possibly relate to, since I doubt that they exist. And even as metaphors for something else that *might* exist, they don't seem particularly useful, as well as being contaminated by a huge variety of existing descriptions, many of them mutually exclusive and none of them backed with anything like empirical evidence. So I'm afraid I can't address your point.

"Finally, do you have a photo of yourself and your partner eating a nice steak? Why not a lion eating a nice giraffe? Think about it."

Well, I've been a vegetarian for most of my 48 years, and my wife and I have been vegans for the past 13 years, so I *have* thought about it, early and often. I understand that you want people who are aesthetically revolted by violent death in nature to be aware of their own hypocrisy, but it's been my experience that in response it's all too easy for such hypocrites to simply adjust their aesthetic revulsion level to suit their practices than the other way 'round. Humans have a remarkable ability to reorganize their own particular reality-construct to suit their comfort zone, which I think also rather handily explains the popularity of belief in a god.

Submitted by W.F. O'Mahony on February 18, 2012 - 10:54pm.

My point related more to the order which physics exemplifes; ie the question is not what physics ordered but what order physics (the ultimate cause / design). I fully intended to sound close to intelligent design. If physics was not intelligently designed then how did it come about. Magic? Or is the question not valid? Surely it must be?

You confuse God theory with religion. Religion(s) attempt to explain the very-difficult-to-explain at best; at worst they are a complete con designed by charletons to control / rob the gullable. God theory is far more rational than any religion. There is little point in ridiculing religion to me as you are preaching to the converted. 90% of religion is bunkum, plain and simple. Maybe 99% even.

Theism is a theory of a loving God while Deism is a belief in a God assumed to be a unity (singularity) whereby all energy (including matter) is intimately interconnected in a way partly (slightly) explained by quantum mechanics.

Try Deepak Chopra's "Synchrodestiny" ...not that it of he is the answer to everything either; but it's a start. Deepak Chopra is an endochronologist who believes quite a bit beyond his own science.

I feel you are continuing to rely on empirical evidence (there are other forms of evidence) as regards "soul" ...I wouldn't get hung up on terms. Maybe a better approach is via psychology ...a useful approach is the "onion skins" - strip away every aspect of your own life's associations in answering the question:'Who are you really?'(discount your qualification, job, wife, sibblings, parents, friends, colleagues etc; even your name, age, address, nationality). What's left? Would you say nothing? Innermost self if you don't like soul. Carl Jung is a good source for further enquiry if you're interested.

I'm sorry I was flippant about the steak meal (I hoped you weren't a vegetarian but you are. Good for you. I'd like to be but find it very difficult - 'must try harder. I agree with you too that "Humans have a remarkable ability to reorganize their own particular reality-construct to suit their comfort zone, which I think also rather handily explains the popularity of belief in a god" or scientific absolutism perhaps?

But not in every case. Some of us believe in genuine enquiry, open-mindedness, weighing evidence and many thinking people, including many worldclass scientists still consider God theory to be a valid theory in light of all the evidence available, albeit circumstantial and based on observation and I hope reasoned deduction. Indeed, the discovery of the genome and developments in quantum physics have strengthened rather than dimished their belief in God theory.

Submitted by albin on February 21, 2012 - 12:55pm.

there is no 'bible' of evolution. its science.there is no 'high pope' of any science either. religion has this kind of heirarchy, and this only showed that fraser is extremely shallow in his understanding of what science is. that people might judge something on its merit and not just its ancient dogma and status-missed the point i think.